₦airaland Forum

,..

No!!

.,.

,,

..,

.....

.,

...

No. But there is a war on falsehood.

..

.

An enraged Pope Paul V, in 1606, told the Venetian ambassador, "Do you not know that so much reading of Scripture ruins the Catholic religion?"
[The Reformation: A History by Diarmaid MacCulloch, 1972]

felixomor:
Nice one, Op

The greatest bewilderment is how someone was able to conclude that man came from apes because we look like apes.
It's the biggest fallacy of false cause ever known.

It baffles me too.

The bitterest pill to swallow for any Christian who attempts to “make peace” with Darwin is the presumed animal ancestry of man. Even many Christians who uncritically accept evolutionary dogma as “God’s way of creating” try to elevate man and his origin above that of the beasts. Evolutionists attempt to soften the blow by assuring us that man didn’t exactly evolve from apes (tailless monkeys) but rather from ape-like creatures. This is mere semantics, as may be seen from the fact that many of the presumed animal ancestors of man have been given scientific names which include the word pithecus (derived from the Greek meaning ape) just like many living apes. The much-touted “human ancestor” commonly known as “Lucy,” for example, has the scientific name Australopithecus afarensis (meaning southern ape from the Afar triangle of Africa), though evolutionists often refer to this ape as a “woman”! But what exactly is the evidence for the ape ancestry of man and how compelling is it?

The first and most important thing we should understand is that evolutionists begin with the assumption that man has in fact evolved from apes. No paleoanthropologist (one who studies the fossil evidence for man’s origin) would dare to seriously raise the question “did man evolve from apes?” The only permissible question is “from which apes did man evolve?” Since evolutionists generally do not believe that man evolved from any ape that is now living, they look to extinct apes in the fossil record to provide them with their desired evidence. Specifically, they look for any anatomical feature that looks “intermediate” between that of apes and man. Fossil apes having such features are declared to be ancestral to man (or at least collateral relatives) and are called hominids. Living apes, on the other hand, are not considered to be “hominids,” they only sort of look like humans. Still, evolutionists are willing to accept certain trivial similarities between extinct apes and men as “proof” of ancestry.

Fossils of so-called “hominids” are typically fragmentary and sufficiently rare that even many who presume to study the origin of man have never actually handled one. Many scientific papers on human evolution are based on only casts of original specimens (or even on published photos, measurements, and descriptions of them). Naturally, there is a great premium on firsthand studies of real “hominid” fossils but such opportunities are typically confined to those lucky enough to find them and the chosen few they permit to handle their fragile specimens. Since there is much more prestige in finding an ancestor of man than an ancestor of living apes (or worse yet, merely an extinct ape), there is immense pressure on paleoanthropologists to decide in favor of “hominid” status for any of the exceedingly rare, apelike fossils they find. It would seem that the living apes have pretty much been left to find their own ancestors.

With rare exception, primate fossils consist of bones and teeth rather than the soft organs of the body. Because of their relative hardness, teeth, jaws and basal skull fragments are the most frequently found primate fossils. Much of the evidence for the ape ancestry of man is based on similarities in teeth and jaws. In contrast to man, apes tend to have large incisor and canine teeth, which are relatively larger than their molars. In addition, there is typically a broad gap between the incisor and canine teeth of apes. Finally, the jaws tend to be more U-shaped in apes and more parabolic (like the St. Louis Arch) in man.

One of the problems in identifying evolutionary “intermediates” is the normal range of variations that occur among both fossil and living species of apes and humans. The normal human jaw, for example, may vary among individuals from parabolic (humanlike) to U-shaped (apelike), while some living species of apes, like the Galada baboons, have relatively large molars (humanlike). It seems almost certain that teeth tell us more about an organism’s diet and feeding habits than its supposed evolution. Still, impressionable artists have not hesitated to illustrate entire “ape-men” from nothing more than a single tooth. In the early 1920s, the “ape-man” Hesperopithecus (which consisted of a single tooth) was pictured in the London Illustrated News complete with the tooth’s wife, children, domestic animals, and cave!( ) This tooth, known as “Nebraska man” was still used by evolutionists as compelling evidence for human evolution during the time of the Scopes trial in 1925, but in 1927 parts of the skeleton were found, and Nebraska man was downgraded to an extinct pig!

The most eagerly sought after evidence in fossil “hominids” is any anatomical feature that suggests bipedality (the ability to walk on two legs). Humans walk in a bipedal fashion (as do birds and kangaroos), so any evidence of bipedality in fossil apes is considered by evolutionists to be compelling evidence for human ancestry. The distinctive human gait requires the complex integration of many skeletal and muscular features in our hips, legs, and feet. Thus, evolutionists closely examine the hip bones (pelvis), thigh bones (femur), leg bones (tibia and fibula), and foot bones (especially the toes) of fossil apes in an effort to detect any anatomical features consistent with bipedality.

Evolutionists are particularly interested in the angle at which the femur and the tibia meet at the knee (called the carrying angle). Humans are able to keep their weight over their feet while walking because their femurs converge toward the knees forming a carrying angle of approximately 9 degrees with the tibia (we’re sort of knock- kneed). In contrast, chimpanzees and gorillas have widespread legs with a carrying angle of essentially 0 degrees. These animals manage to keep their weight over their feet when walking by swinging their body from side to side in the familiar “ape-walk.” Evolutionists assume that fossil apes with a high carrying angle (human-like) were bipedal and thus evolving into man. The southern African australopithicines (like Lucy) are considered to be our ancestors largely because they had a carrying angle of 15 degrees. Many evolutionists now argue, however, that this high carrying angle might actually indicate that australopithicines were adept tree climbers! Among nonhuman living primates, the highest carrying angles (values comparable to man) are found in the orangutan and spider monkey—both exceptionally adept tree climbers though capable of at least a clumsy bipedal gait on the ground. The point is that there are living tree-dwelling apes and monkeys with some of the same anatomical features that evolutionists consider as evidence for bipedality, yet no one suggests that these animals are either our ancestors or descendants.

Australopithicines (especially “Lucy”) are often depicted as having hands and feet identical to modern man, which, if true, might strongly suggest human ancestry. A live-appearing mannequin of “Lucy” in the Living World exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo, for example, shows virtually human hands and feet on a shapely (though hairy) humanlike female body with an obviously ape-like head. Lucy stands erect in a deeply pensive pose with her right elbow resting on the wrist of her crooked left arm and with her right forefinger curled under her chin, her eyes gazing off into the distance as if she were contemplating the mind of Newton. Any uncritical visitor seeing this exhibit would be inclined to think they had seen a true “ape-woman.” Few visitors are aware that this is a misrepresentation of what is known about the fossil ape Australopithecus afarensis. While the “Lucy” fossil itself lacks both hands and feet, several other known specimens of A. afarensis include these important bones and all show evidence of the long curved fingers and toes characteristic of tree dwelling primates. Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman (American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279–317) have reported that the hands of this species are “surprisingly similar to hands found in the small end of the pygmy chimpanzee-common chimpanzee range.” They report that the feet, like the hands, are “long, curved and heavily muscled,” much like those of living primates that engage in tree climbing as well as bipedality. The authors remind us that no living primate has such hands and feet “for any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part-time arboreal (tree dwelling) life.”

We have seen how evolutionists have used australopithicines to make man out of monkeys; in our next installment we will see how they have used Neanderthal man to make monkeys out of men.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/making-men-out-of-monkeys/

.

Dalam0n:
Am not asking how the different human races came about. Am asking for the race of Adam and Eve since you believe they were the first humans. What was their race?

It is not recorded in the Creation account. And it doesn't have to be.

"Race" means nothing, affects nothing and neither affords nor denies any privilege with God, for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

Are you asking, in essence, how there came to be different "races" eg blacks, whites, caucasians, etc?

Like all evolutionists, Darwin had to assume the truth of the Bible in order to argue against the truth of the Bible.

Evolutionists often attempt to use observational science—arguments from biology, paleontology, geology, or even astronomy—to support their belief. But the really interesting thing is that they base all their arguments on principles that ultimately come from biblical creation! As strange as it may sound, evolutionists must unwittingly assume that creation is true in order to argue against it. That means that Darwin was (in a sense) a “creationist.” All evolutionists must borrow the principles of biblical creation in order to do science (even though they would deny this). Here is why.

The Bible Provides the Foundation for an Orderly Universe

To do science, certain things must be true. The universe must be logical and have some organization to it. Moreover, the human mind must be capable of rational thought—capable of considering the various alternatives and then choosing the best. But if evolution were true, then we would have no reason to expect either of these conditions. If this world were nothing but a cosmic accident, if our brains were nothing but rearranged pond scum, then why would they be able to understand the universe?

On the other hand, a biblical creationist has every reason to expect scientific inquiry to be possible. The Bible teaches that God made the universe and the human mind, so we would expect these two things to “go together.” Moreover, since God gave Adam the responsibility to care for creation, it makes sense that He would have given Adam the ability to understand the natural world.


The Bible Is the Foundation for Logic

Logical reasoning itself only makes sense in a biblical worldview. To make a logical argument about anything, we have to use laws of logic. But if the universe is just matter in motion (as many evolutionists believe), laws of logic wouldn’t exist since laws of logic are not made of matter. Laws of logic are “rules” that help us distinguish correct from incorrect forms of reasoning. But in an evolutionary universe, why should there be a standard for reasoning, and who is to say what that standard is? How could we ever really know for certain the laws of logic?

In the biblical creation worldview, however, laws of logic make sense. They reflect the thinking of God who upholds the entire universe by His power. God is our standard for correct thinking because all truth is in Him. We can know about laws of logic because God has made us in His image and has revealed some of His thoughts to us in His Word. We can expect laws of logic to be universally true and never change because they stem from the nature of God. So, when evolutionists such as Charles Darwin attempt to use science and logic, they reveal the fact that in their heart of hearts they know the God of creation.

The Bible Makes Sense of Rules of Behavior

Additionally, evolutionists believe in a moral code: a standard for how we should think and behave. But the idea of a moral code goes back to biblical creation. Since God has created us, He has the right to set the rules of behavior. In fact, the Bible tells us that the law is written on our hearts. However, if people were just complex chemicals and our decisions were just chemical reactions, then people wouldn’t have any genuine choice in what they do. If we were not created by God, then any moral code invented by people would just be arbitrary opinion.

This doesn’t mean that evolutionists don’t act morally, but those who reject biblical creation have no ultimate basis for their morality. So when evolutionists tell us how to think or behave, they are acting as if they believe in creation. Their actions reveal that they embrace an objective moral code, even though they have no basis for it in their professed worldview.

The fact that evolutionists believe in science, rationality, and morality is inconsistent with their professed belief in evolution. This shows that in their hearts, they really know the God whose Word they are attacking, even though they verbally deny this. They “suppress” the truth, as the Scripture teaches (Romans 1:18–25).

From Darwin to Dawkins, all evolutionists have relied upon their suppressed knowledge of the God of creation—as evidenced by their belief in science, logic, and morality. As a result of their failure to honor God or thank Him, their thinking is reduced to futile speculations (Romans 1:21).

The notion of particles-to-people evolution is just one example of mankind’s speculations. But people cannot consistently function rationally with such a futile way of thinking. In their effort to construct arguments against biblical creation, evolutionists must unwittingly rely on the concepts that can come only from biblical creation.

All knowledge is in Christ (Colossians 2:3). So anyone who wants to be consistently rational and scientific must submit to Him first (Proverbs 1:7). Christians who understand and embrace this truth have a powerful tool for defending the Christian faith and reaching the unsaved with the gospel.

The next time someone tries to condemn the biblical view of origins using arguments from biology or other sciences, just remind him that scientific arguments make consistent, logical sense only when reality is understood from a biblical worldview, beginning with creation. Equipped with this powerful apologetics method, you can point out how all evolutionists must, in reality, assume that creation is true in order to attempt to logically argue against it.

Beginning your discussions on the Scripture’s authority, you will stand on solid ground (Matthew 7:24–29).

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwin-unwittingly-a-creationist/

umarshek6:
"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you into the age (to come)." 
John 14:16



"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7


"When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of me." John 15:26



"But the Paraclete, the Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." John 14:26



I also have d explanation if u still desire me to further it break down

So Mohammed is the Holy Spirit?

How many people did Mohammed comfort? Those he murdered or robbed?

Who is this that says in Rev 1:11 , “I am the alpha and omega, the first and last.” The Mormon, or Muslim will say that refers to God (or Allah they may say). Then ask, what about here in Rev 21:6, “I am the Alpha and Omega, beginning and the end.” Who is that? They will say, God.
Then we refer to rev 1:17-18. “I am the first and the last, He that liveth, and was dead, and behold I am alive forever more.” Who is this? They will say, that is God, to which you reply, “When did God die?”

Also, on a side note, The Quran of Islam states that God departed the law and inspiration to the bible’s profits, that he sent down the law of Moses, and the Gospel of Jesus, (Sura 2:87; 3:3; 4:163; and 5:46), and that the word of God cannot be altered (6:34, 6:115). However, most Muslims will state that the bible has been corrupted and that the Quran must be trusted over the Christian bible. The real question is how can the Muslim trust the Quran, if in its very text it states to trust the gospels, and Allah’s words cannot be changed. Another way to state this is in a simple proof which the text bears out:

1 – If the Bible is true then the Quran is false
2 – If the Bible is false, then the Quran is false
3 – Therefore, the Quran is false

Source: https://jrcooper.org/2017/01/26/if-jesus-doesnt-know-the-hour-is-he-god/

hopefulLandlord:
HE DIDN'T SAY HE WON'T BELIEVE IN GOD'S EXISTENCE

who's wriggling here? me that's giving facts that can be checked or you that keep parroting a juxtaposed quote and cancelled WLC's version in order to pretend it never happened?

Martin Rowson contrasts his "atheism" with that of the scientific secularists. He points out that the secularists base their atheism on the weight of verifiable empirical evidence. What does that mean? Simple: Martin Rowson's "atheism" does not rely/rest on the weight of evidence. Again, attached below is a screenshot of a post from the Guardian, where the author stated that Martin Rowson told him that he would still be an atheist even if God appeared to him.

And if we define atheism as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, then Martin Rowson would continue in his disbelief in the existence of God even in the face of proof.

hopefulLandlord:
lol, you are one dishonest fellow, even reading all the words in the screenshot you posted proves the context I'm talking about, he said he won't buy the ideology aka Christianity that comes with god lol, way to impale oneself

You can’t wriggle free of this one. Face it. Martin Rowson said that even if God appeared to him, he would still not believe in Him.

Who cares whether he doesn't like Christianity? The fact is, he would still refuse to believe in the face of proof.

[s]

themonk:
I wouldn't want to believe in a God that puts cancer in small children.

I wouldn't want to believe in a God that created mosquitoes to kill millions of people he created.

I wouldn't want to believe in a God that watches people suffer from natural disasters.

That's what that atheist you quoted above means.
If there is a God and he allowed all these things to happen, it is better that there is no God than that God exists.

Please if you want to quote me back, use sound and logical reasoning. As you would notice I am not a frequent commenter in the religious section because the irrationality in most arguments here piss me off.

[/s]

God exists. Deal with it.

Why evil is in the world is altogether a different question.

hopefulLandlord:
This quote was definitely taken out of context and here you are swallowing it whole

He's not saying he won't believe in the god's existence if god proves to him, he's saying he won't believe in any religion even if that were the case

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/03/if-god-proved-he-existed-i-still-wouldnt-believe-in-him/


[s]its also inconsequential even if the quote were just like you said it cuz the likes of Martin are rare; hell WLC that said he believes Christianity to be true because he believes Jesus rose from the dead was once asked

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let’s pretend that a
time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb. would you still believe Jesus rose?

Craig told him he would still believe in the resurrection of Jesus and Christianity to be true[/s]

I wonder how the quotes below were taken out of context. Did you see the part where he said even an appearance by God would not make him believe? Yeah, I know the quote embarrasses you. Some atheists are like that. As a matter of fact, I see every atheist that way.

You want a proof of God? Prove that you are not like Martin Rowson.

Inasmuch as I wish that all men everywhere would lift holy hands to God in worship, I actually think the church should be separate from the state. The powers and capacities of the state should not be used to further the agenda of the church. That has never been God's plan.

Marriage between the church and state anywhere has always resulted in a monstrous, unholy alliance that seeks to eliminate freedom, and enslave the minds and conscience of men.

You will hear it often when Catholics and Protestants are discussing their faith. The Protestant quotes a Scripture verse and points to the fact that the Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. But the Catholic will often say something like, “But without the Catholic Church’s Tradition, you Protestants would not have a Bible. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, therefore you should submit to our Church.” Quite a statement… but is this really true?


Some Questions

Before answering him, we should start off by asking the Catholic a couple of important questions. First, we should ask, “What do you mean by saying the Catholic Church ‘gave us the Bible’?” Is he suggesting that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible? If so, this certainly cannot be the case, since the Old Testament was written long before the Catholic Church existed. Neither can they claim to have written the New Testament, since that was written by the apostles and their close associates. And the apostles knew nothing of those teachings which are uniquely Catholic.

What Catholics generally mean when they say that their Church gave us the Bible is that the Catholic Church, through certain councils, was responsible for revealing to us the “canon” of the Bible, i.e., which books are inspired by God and actually belong in the Bible.

If this is indeed what they mean, then we need to ask him our second question: “When did this happen?” And they will usually say that the canon was finally settled at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), and it was later restated / reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.).

This sounds really nice, but there are a number of problems with their claims.


Local, Not Ecumenical

Point #1 - The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were local or “provincial” councils (synods), and they could not “finally settle” the canon or any other issue that affected all the churches. They were not “ecumenical” councils, because their rulings were not binding on the whole church. The reason that this is a problem is because Catholics often stress the idea that we really “need” infallible certainty on the canon. But according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the canon of Scripture was not “infallibly” declared until the Council of Trent did so in 1546:

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill, Copyright 1967, Volume 3, “Canon, Biblical”, p. 29)

Likewise, the online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”) says:

“The Tridentine decrees [i.e., from the Council of Trent] from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

So, according to this, the church existed for over 1500 years without an infallibly-pronounced canon. Why is this, if “infallible certainty” is so important?

For more on infallible certainty and the canon, see our article here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims..com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html


Wrong Canon

Point #2 - To make matters worse for Catholics, the canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage does not match the canon which was given by the Council of Trent. This is because the canon of Hippo and Carthage comes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek – written sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.), while the Council of Trent specifically mentions using the canon of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin translation – written 382-405 A.D.):

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Fourth Session) [Emphasis added]

The problem is that both canons contain a book called 1 Esdras, but the earlier 1 Esdras is different from the one at the Council of Trent. How do we know this? According to a chart in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Septuagint’s 1 Esdras is equivalent to the Vulgate’s 3 Esdras. And it specifically says, “The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397) [Emphasis added]

So, Trent declared 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [1 Esdras of the Septuagint] to be uncanonical (not belonging in the Bible), and it was therefore removed from the canon. So, if this book was “removed” from the canon by Trent, it must have been there in the first place sometime earlier. And that is because it was there from the earlier councils, i.e., Hippo, Carthage, etc. So, by the Catholic Church’s own admission, the earlier canon was different from Trent’s, because it had an extra book. So the idea that Trent accepted and simply reaffirmed the earlier councils’ canon is wrong.

To confirm this with another Catholic source:

“Except for Jerome’s OT from the Hebrew, all other Lat renderings of the OT and NT were made from the Greek.” (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999, page 1100)

The irony in all this is that according to the quote from Trent above, rather than affirming, this ecumenical council actually condemns with anathema the Councils of Carthage and Hippo because their canon did not match the Vulgate’s.

So, what if the Catholic says, “Ok, so the Catholic church gave us the Bible (i.e., the correct canon) at Trent instead of Carthage and Hippo, so what?” But, taking 1500 years to recognize the canon is not very reassuring, especially for a Church who insists on the need for infallible certainty. It certainly seems that Catholic “Tradition” failed to protect the early canon from error in this case.

There are a number of church historians / scholars and other sources who also point out this difference between the Septuagint’s canon and the canon of the Vulgate. See the details in this very informative article by William Webster:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html


The Apocrypha

Point #3 – The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther).

These 7 extra books Catholics call the “Deuterocanonical” books. Protestants usually refer to them as the “Apocrypha,” and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly:


1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament.

2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the “inspiration” of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?

3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical.


Even the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the church fathers of the Middle Ages and their attitude toward the Apocrypha:

“Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”)

For much more information on the Apocrypha, see the William Webster link that we mentioned above.


Teachings Not Biblical

Point #4 - If the Catholic Church really did give us the Bible, then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages (e.g., doctrines like confession to a priest, Mary’s sinless birth and life, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the office of pope, praying to saints, etc., etc.)? Interestingly, we find none of these in the Bible they claim to have given us.


Used by God

Point #5 - When it comes to spiritual deception the most dangerous lies are the ones that contain a certain amount of truth mixed in. And that is the case here. The “certain amount of truth mixed in” is that the Catholic Church was used, to some extent, in preserving and copying the Bible. But the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible.” GOD did. It is HIS Word given to His people… the Old Testament given through the Jewish prophets, and the New Testament given through the Apostles and their close associates. The universal church of the New Testament just recognized the inspired Scriptures… it did not create or establish them. It was simply used by God in identifying the canon.

But apparently, some Catholics believe that if God uses someone, then we must submit to them.” But this does not logically or necessarily follow because God can use anybody or anything, good or bad, to accomplish His will. But this only proves that God is sovereign. God has used a whale (Jonah 1:17), a rooster (Matthew 26:74-75), and even a donkey (Numbers 22:22-34) to do His will, but that doesn’t mean that we are to submit to whales, roosters or donkeys, does it?

God can also use evil men to prophesy (John 11:49-52), but are we expected to yield to them? Obviously not. God can even use the devil to accomplish His will (Job 1:6-12; 42:10), but does this mean that we should be obedient to Satan? Again, the point is, just because God has USED a person or group in some way to bring about His will, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we must now submit to them. We should only submit to a person or church whose teachings are biblical.

This same misguided reasoning would also require us to submit to Judaism, the religion of the Jews (including any of its un-Christian traditions), since God used the Jews to write and preserve three-fourths of the Bible which we have today (the Old Testament). After all, it was to the Jews that the oracles of God were first given (Romans 3:2). In light of this, the Jews would have more right to claim to have “given us the Bible” than the Catholic Church has.


So Where Did it Come From?

Many Catholics act as though there was nothing but utter confusion over the canon in the early church and the multitudes were desperate to find someone, an infallible authority, who could “determine” the canon for them. Then the Catholic Church stepped in with their councils and saved the day… or at least that’s what many Catholics would like us to believe. But it was not so.

Ok, so where did we get the Bible from, if it wasn’t from the Catholic Church?

Demanding an answer to questions like “Who gave us the Bible?” is actually misleading. There is no one person or group that is responsible for giving us the Bible. Just as the books of the Old Testament were, little by little, accumulated over the years by God’s people who recognized His Spirit moving in His prophets (and eventually writing it down)… it was the same with the apostles and the New Testament. It was a gradual process with many believers involved over time. And just as the Jews recognized Old Testament Scripture without an infallible authority, it was the same with the early Christians.

Although the councils did help, to a certain extent, to crystallize the canon in the minds of the early Christians, these councils, for the most part, merely affirmed the books that were already widely accepted. They were simply attempting to make it “official.”

Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed.

It is said that virtually the whole New Testament could be reproduced simply from the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (those who lived before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.). So, the early church was already familiar with the canon of Scripture at this time.

In all fairness, the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome) did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, as we mentioned earlier. But this doesn’t mean that “the Bible comes from them.”


Conclusion

The implications of all this are sobering and far-reaching. When Catholics say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, they are in effect saying that this Church (along with its “Tradition”) is the final authority, and that we must submit to them. They are implying that the Bible gets its authority from that Church and only they have the authority to properly interpret it. But this is certainly not true. The universal church recognized the inspired writings. However, the Scriptures are not “church-breathed,” but God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Simply recognizing something (the canon) is not the same thing as being responsible for its existence. The Bible no more owes its existence to the Catholic Church than gravity owes its existence to Sir Isaac Newton.

The idea of the Catholic Church giving the Bible to the world is yet another boastful (but empty) claim coming from the Catholic side. One has to wonder… how many of the Catholic Church’s claims need to be exposed as false, before the “lay Catholic” in the pew will see the light? How many exaggerated claims from his leaders must he endure before he breaks free of the Catholic Church’s shackles? Hopefully, very few.

This is what Martin Rowson, an atheist, said:

“IF GOD PROVED HE EXISTED, I STILL WOULDN’T BELIEVE IN HIM… I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD, NOT BECAUSE I CAN’T BUT BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO” (Source.)

Clearly, giving a proof of God to Martin Rowson is a waste of time.

OP then has to prove that he would not, like Martin Rowson, still refuse to believe in God, if a proof of God’s existence was given to him.

[s]

dalaman:
How can it pain me that you are a shameless plagiarist? Shebi you know that plagiarism is stealing?

[/s]

...

.,

.